Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-29-2017 11:14 PM
398 online now:
Coyote, Davidjay, edge, marc9000, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (5 members, 393 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,757 Year: 10,363/21,208 Month: 3,450/2,674 Week: 866/961 Day: 69/109 Hour: 2/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
313233
34
3536Next
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
Faith
Member
Posts: 24484
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 496 of 533 (730585)
06-29-2014 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 493 by herebedragons
06-29-2014 10:40 AM


The Colorado River drains a large area, some seven states if I recall correctly, so it could be the remains of the water from the Flood that washed through all that area including Monument Valley, but I don't know.

I also don't know what volume of water it would take flowing at what speed to carve the Grand Canyon but I have in mind one humongous Flood you know, so whatever cubic feet or miles of stuff that was removed I'd just assume a sufficient volume of water to remove it. If the Flood laid it down, the receding Flood could remove it.

ABE: In reading up on the Palouse River area in response to RAZD I found mentions of enormous amounts of volcanic deposition in that area as well as enormous amounts of material removed into the Pacific Ocean by the flooding of Lake Missoula. Cubic miles of stuff removed into the Pacific by one draining lake. /abe

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by herebedragons, posted 06-29-2014 10:40 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by herebedragons, posted 06-29-2014 12:36 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 500 by NoNukes, posted 06-29-2014 12:50 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24484
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 497 of 533 (730597)
06-29-2014 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 485 by RAZD
06-28-2014 5:44 PM


Why only one scablands? Well it's all basalt for one thing, which was cut catastrophically by a draining lake, not directly by the receding worldwide Flood, which would have removed a lot of stuff from the area already; while the Grand Canyon area is all layered sediments that would have been carved out initially by the receding Flood. So the flooding of the Missoula caused one kind of river bed while water elsewhere caused a different kind, doesn't strike me as a big problem. For the Grand Canyon the Flood would have carved out the basic depth and breadth but the remaining normal river would have cut the V-shaped bottom afterward. Seems to take care of the problem

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by RAZD, posted 06-28-2014 5:44 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1298
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 498 of 533 (730612)
06-29-2014 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 495 by Faith
06-29-2014 10:54 AM


And by the way, the monuments in Monument Valley are not "hoodoos" -- those are at the top of the Grand Staircase in the Claron Formation which is quite a bit higher than Monument Valley.

Ooops, that's right. Bryce Canyon is more appropriate to hoodoo formations. Bryce Canyon has a larger area (56 square miles), but I am not clear on what the volume of material that needed to be removed was. Just change reference to hoodoos to buttes.

OK, and in the Grand Canyon-Grand Staircase area also, a huge amount of material from above the Kaibab for thousands of square miles.

Monument Valley only covers .02% of the Colorado Plateau, which all needs to be eroded at generally the same kind of rates.

What? The hoodoos were not CARVED by the Flood, they weren't carved until after the Flood abated and then slowly by erosion.

After the flood waters abated, you would have erosion of the type that we can identify with and can understand based on other known flood sources such as the Channeled Scablands being scoured by Lake Missoula floods. Erosion would have quickly settled into the kinds of processes we can relate to.

quote:
And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, that the waters were dried up from the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and indeed the surface of the ground was dry. And in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dried.
Gen 8:13 - 14

The ground was dried. The flood was over. If there were standing bodies of water left over from the flood, they would now operate in ways we can relate to today. The vast majority of the erosional work needs to be done as the flood waters drained.

Or was this only a local drying? Or maybe a metaphor?

that doesn't mean there weren't parts of the world where the water was still standing in basins, or still running in very large or broad rivers and that sort of thing before settling down to today's levels.

Sure, there definitely would be. And then erosion would begin to operate in ways that we relate to. These extreme rates of erosion that can carve features so rapidly could not have formed by these processes, they need to be done by the actual flood waters running off.

But you have it all wrong about the hoodoos. Please see Percy's estimates and my responses and let's try to get this all coordinated.

Because I am trying to imagine it from a "flood geology" perspective. I am not sure there is any way to "get all this coordinated."

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 10:54 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 501 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-29-2014 1:14 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1298
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 499 of 533 (730614)
06-29-2014 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 496 by Faith
06-29-2014 10:56 AM


I have in mind one humongous Flood you know, so whatever cubic feet or miles of stuff that was removed I'd just assume a sufficient volume of water to remove it. If the Flood laid it down, the receding Flood could remove it.

A lot of assumptions that have no basis in naturalistic explanations.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 10:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9453
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 500 of 533 (730618)
06-29-2014 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 496 by Faith
06-29-2014 10:56 AM


The Colorado River drains a large area, some seven states if I recall correctly, so it could be the remains of the water from the Flood that washed through all that area including Monument Valley, but I don't know.

Do you know what a river is?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 10:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1351
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.6


(1)
Message 501 of 533 (730620)
06-29-2014 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 498 by herebedragons
06-29-2014 12:32 PM


After the flood waters abated

The ground was dried. The flood was over. If there were standing bodies of water left over from the flood, they would now operate in ways we can relate to today. The vast majority of the erosional work needs to be done as the flood waters drained.

Where did the flood waters go? How could there be runoff if the whole planet is covered by water? Faith and the other YECs all talk about the flood causing erosion as if a plug was pulled and the flood water went down a drain.

Did it get sucked into a black hole or something? Water has to have a lower level to flow into before it can flow. If the whole planet is covered with water there is no lower level to flow into.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by herebedragons, posted 06-29-2014 12:32 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15798
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 502 of 533 (730621)
06-29-2014 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 490 by Faith
06-29-2014 10:14 AM


I did some arithmetic based on figures Percy gave for the erosion of the hoodoos and the monuments. Seems to me all the numbers he gave would have had all the formations mentioned wiped out totally well before the time estimated on the basis of Old Earth reckoning. You can tell me if my arithmetic is off.

Well since use of the forum Search function shows that Percy has never said how old any given hoodoo is, it's not just your "arithmetic" that's off.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 10:14 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15798
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 503 of 533 (730623)
06-29-2014 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 488 by Faith
06-29-2014 10:03 AM


Wouldn't that then be about 20,000 feet in a million years which should have totally wiped out the Dover cliffs many times over by now if they are that old?

The tide-based erosional forces wouldn't kick in until different erosional forces had opened up the English Channel.

That's about a foot per 2000 years or 1000 feet in 2 million years, or 10,000 feet in 20 millions years, sufficient I would think to wipe out a sandstone monument in the time normally allotted since their formation.

* sighs *

The end point is not the start point.

* shakes head *

Creationists ...

"This man can't be seventy. Why, he's clearly very old. So in seventy years he'd be dead!"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 488 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 10:03 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 1:28 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24484
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 504 of 533 (730625)
06-29-2014 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 503 by Dr Adequate
06-29-2014 1:21 PM


abe:
The tide-based erosional forces wouldn't kick in until different erosional forces had opened up the English Channel.

For this discussion you need to think Flood timing rather than OE timing or at least keep it in mind. /abe

"This man can't be seventy. Why, he's clearly very old. So in seventy years he'd be dead!"

I'm not talking about the future of the Dover Cliffs, which is what that remark implies, but that at the rate given by Percy they couldn't be existing NOW given OE assumptions of when they were formed, they'd long since have eroded away to nothing.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote code.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 503 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2014 1:21 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 505 by Coragyps, posted 06-29-2014 1:35 PM Faith has responded
 Message 506 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-29-2014 1:39 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 507 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2014 1:39 PM Faith has responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5266
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 505 of 533 (730627)
06-29-2014 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by Faith
06-29-2014 1:28 PM


Dear heart, the age of the chalk at Dover must, of complete necessity, be greater than the age of the Cliffs. If only by an hour or two....
But it's by more than an hour or two, you see.

"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 1:28 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 508 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 1:40 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1351
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.6


(1)
Message 506 of 533 (730628)
06-29-2014 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by Faith
06-29-2014 1:28 PM


"This man can't be seventy. Why, he's clearly very old. So in seventy years he'd be dead!"

I'm not talking about the future of the Dover Cliffs, which is what that remark implies, but that at the rate given by Percy they couldn't be existing NOW given OE assumptions of when they were formed, they'd long since have eroded away to nothing.

You are still not getting it....it went right over your head.

What are the OE assumptions of when they were formed? And do you mean when the material was deposited or when the erosion of the cliffs began?

The age of the material and the length of time to erode to their present state is more evidence that there was never a worldwide biblical flood.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 1:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15798
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 507 of 533 (730629)
06-29-2014 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by Faith
06-29-2014 1:28 PM


I'm not talking about the future of the Dover Cliffs, which is what that remark implies

What it implies is that you're conflating the past and the future of the geological features you're talking about. Which you are.

but that at the rate given by Percy they couldn't be existing NOW given OE assumptions of when they were formed, they'd long since have eroded away to nothing.

No, they will erode away to nothing in the future. There was not enough time for them to have been eroded away to nothing in the past, because the English Channel hasn't been there that long.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 1:28 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 1:44 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24484
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 508 of 533 (730630)
06-29-2014 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 505 by Coragyps
06-29-2014 1:35 PM


I don't get this. Percy gave a rate for the erosion of the Dover cliffs, I computed it to see how long it would take for it to erode down to nothing. The Cliffs themselves. So the erosion would supposedly begin at the point that they WERE cliffs. Some millions of years ago? Or you tell me when they became exposed cliffs and we'll go from there.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 505 by Coragyps, posted 06-29-2014 1:35 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 510 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2014 1:45 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24484
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 509 of 533 (730632)
06-29-2014 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 507 by Dr Adequate
06-29-2014 1:39 PM


Fine, then if they began to be cliffs when the English Channel was formed which was not millions of years ago, though you don't say when, that's OK by me but I am not talking about the future only computing from what I thought the time of formation was which is usually millions of years in the past by OE reckoning. So that's not true for Dover, so let's just drop it and go back to formations that WERE supposedly formed millions of years ago such as the hoodoos of Bryce Canyon and the monuments of Monument Valley, and in those cases they would long since have eroded down to dust at the rates of erosion given by Percy.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2014 1:39 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 512 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2014 1:52 PM Faith has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15798
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 510 of 533 (730633)
06-29-2014 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 508 by Faith
06-29-2014 1:40 PM


I don't get this. Percy gave a rate for the erosion of the Dover cliffs, I computed it to see how long it would take for it to erode down to nothing. The Cliffs themselves. So the erosion would supposedly begin at the point that they WERE cliffs. Some millions of years ago? Or you tell me when they became exposed cliffs and we'll go from there.

Wikipedia gives an age of between 450,000 and 180,000 years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 508 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 1:40 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 511 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 1:49 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
313233
34
3536Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017